Thursday, November 20, 2014 was an important day in this nation's history. It was the day that our President flagrantly violated the balance of power as established in our Constitution. It was the day his usurpation of executive power was on display for all to see, in a blatant act of indifference to the framework of our government, as laid out by the Founders. It was the day he announced that it would be his way or the highway, and that if Congress couldn't agree wholeheartedly with what he wanted in immigration reform, he would do it anyway. It was the day he gave America the middle finger.
While the president talked of compasssion for hard-working people, families who want to be reunited, and parents who want a better life for their children, this was merely an attempt to win over the hearts and minds of the populace.
Did it work? It didn't work for those who know that no one should jump our fence or sneak into our country, and that as a sovereign nation we have borders that should be respected; it didn't work for those who believe that everyone who comes here should abide by our laws and go through the legal pathway to citizenship; it didn't work for those who question where the money will come from for the education and healthcare of these new citizens who will be 'entitled' to these services; it didn't work for the immigrants who spent thousands of dollars and years of effort to legally become citizens, only to have millions of people cut in front of them on line; it didn't work for those who worry about new and once obsolete diseases in this country, now being re-introduced into our society and presenting health threats to the population; it didn't work for those who are concerned for our national security, knowing that dangerous people can very easily cross over, since nowhere in this plan is the promise of securing our borders; it didn't work for those who know that this is just the beginning, that this is an incremental first step, and that there are millions more ahead to be given this amnesty. But all of this is irrelevant.
Because all of this, had nothing to do with compassion, and everything to do with politics. The granting of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants was designed to add Democrats to the voter rolls, and to insure that Democrats will retain power in this country in perpetuity.
However, given all of this, the reason November 20, 2014 will be remembered, is because that was the day our president acted alone to accomplish this.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Tuesday, November 11, 2014
Dems Need the Stupid Voters
Nothing illustrates the Democrats' reliance on uninformed voters quite like the new video clip of Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare, speaking on the subject. His admission unequivocally states that they deliberately deceived Americans in order to pass the transformative bill. In fact, he admits that "the lack of transparency is a huge political advantage." He went on, "and basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass." These comments were caught on camera at an event from October 2013 and were posted on YouTube by conservative group American Commitment.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/11/10/obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law
This stunning revelation reinforces Nancy Pelosi's comment that "we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it." The Democrat politicians obviously were aware that what they were about to foist onto the American public was problematic, and would be seen that way if the public were informed of its true content. Let's remember, that every Republican in Congress voted against this bill, and that it was passed with backroom deals and questionable tactics by the Democrats.
Ironically though, since the Republican/Conservative electorate had analyzed the various aspects of this bill over the course of a year and took up opposition to Obamacare, (and actively opposed, as the Tea Party was largely born from its rejection of this massive overhaul of our health care system and subsequent intrusion into our lives), it means that those voters were not too stupid to know. They were informed. Apparently, it was the Democrats' own voters they were fooling, and fool they did.
The arrogance of the progressive Left knows no bounds. And while we already know that this elitism exists by the very intrusive laws and regulations that are passed 'for our own good', it is vindicating to hear from their own lips what we always suspected: they rely on the uninformed voter to support their policies, and they believe the ends justify the means.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/11/10/obamacare-architect-admits-deceiving-americans-pass-law
This stunning revelation reinforces Nancy Pelosi's comment that "we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it." The Democrat politicians obviously were aware that what they were about to foist onto the American public was problematic, and would be seen that way if the public were informed of its true content. Let's remember, that every Republican in Congress voted against this bill, and that it was passed with backroom deals and questionable tactics by the Democrats.
Ironically though, since the Republican/Conservative electorate had analyzed the various aspects of this bill over the course of a year and took up opposition to Obamacare, (and actively opposed, as the Tea Party was largely born from its rejection of this massive overhaul of our health care system and subsequent intrusion into our lives), it means that those voters were not too stupid to know. They were informed. Apparently, it was the Democrats' own voters they were fooling, and fool they did.
The arrogance of the progressive Left knows no bounds. And while we already know that this elitism exists by the very intrusive laws and regulations that are passed 'for our own good', it is vindicating to hear from their own lips what we always suspected: they rely on the uninformed voter to support their policies, and they believe the ends justify the means.
Friday, November 7, 2014
Midterm 2014: An Election For the History Books
This midterm election can be seen as an historic election.
Tim Scott, Republican Senator-Elect from South Carolina, is the first black American elected into the Senate from a southern state since Reconstruction.
Mia Love, U.S. Representative-Elect from Utah, is the first Republican black (Haitian) female elected into Congress.
Elise Stefanik, as a 30 yr old Republican, is the youngest woman ever to get elected to Congress and just turned District 21 in New York from blue to red.
These candidates were all supported by the Tea Party. Oh wait, the Tea Party and the Republicans are supposed to be racist and sexist...how can that be? As Glenn Beck pointed out, no one even realized the historic nature of these candidates until after the election. That is the true mark of a non-racist, non-sexist Republican electorate...the candidates were elected on merit. It wasn't trumped up at all, like the way it was when Nancy Pelosi was facing the prospect of being the first woman Speaker, or the way Obama was going to be the first black president when the media made huge deals of the gender and skin color of these candidates.
Other noteworthy election results:
The Republican gains in the Senate and the House were significant, and they will now control both houses of Congress.
There is now a solid majority of states in the hands of Republican governors and state legislatures.
In Arkansas, Republicans now hold every congressional seat in the state for the first time in 141 years.
Congress will have 100 female members for the first time in history.
Lots of interesting stories coming out of this midterm election, and yet, the liberal media chose not to give attention to some historic wins. Pity, they're still playing identity politics.
Tim Scott, Republican Senator-Elect from South Carolina, is the first black American elected into the Senate from a southern state since Reconstruction.
Mia Love, U.S. Representative-Elect from Utah, is the first Republican black (Haitian) female elected into Congress.
Elise Stefanik, as a 30 yr old Republican, is the youngest woman ever to get elected to Congress and just turned District 21 in New York from blue to red.
These candidates were all supported by the Tea Party. Oh wait, the Tea Party and the Republicans are supposed to be racist and sexist...how can that be? As Glenn Beck pointed out, no one even realized the historic nature of these candidates until after the election. That is the true mark of a non-racist, non-sexist Republican electorate...the candidates were elected on merit. It wasn't trumped up at all, like the way it was when Nancy Pelosi was facing the prospect of being the first woman Speaker, or the way Obama was going to be the first black president when the media made huge deals of the gender and skin color of these candidates.
Other noteworthy election results:
The Republican gains in the Senate and the House were significant, and they will now control both houses of Congress.
There is now a solid majority of states in the hands of Republican governors and state legislatures.
In Arkansas, Republicans now hold every congressional seat in the state for the first time in 141 years.
Congress will have 100 female members for the first time in history.
Lots of interesting stories coming out of this midterm election, and yet, the liberal media chose not to give attention to some historic wins. Pity, they're still playing identity politics.
Monday, November 3, 2014
Influencing the Election Outcome
The following reports are coming in regarding the upcoming elections across the country:
Some voting machines in Maryland and Illinois were switching votes from Republican to Democrat.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/10/28/voting-machine-in-maryland-changes-votes-for-republicans-to-votes-for-democrats-n1910991
In Arizona, a liberal activist was caught on video stuffing a ballot box with hundreds of ballots.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1572639/2014-election-results-democrat-voter-fraud-caught-in-arizona-maryland-and-illinois/
Reports of thousands of illegal immigrants voting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/01/driver-licenses-id-cards-for-illegal-immigrants-causing-voting-concerns/
Promises of 'no photo ID required' on signs outside of polling places.
Recent data has shown there was massive voter fraud in North Carolina in 2012 - 765 people voted in NC and voted in another state (name, DOB and SS# matched up). As many as 35,000 people matched up with name and DOB but not SS# (that needs further investigation).
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/10/dick-morris/dick-morris-theres-proof-over-1-million-people-vot/
In an egregrious attempt to acquire more 'favorable' votes, Colorado has just instituted some very troublesome laws for voting.
1. Every eligible voter is receiving a ballot in the mail (this is done in Oregon and Washington state too). Once they are filled in, they need not be mailed back, they can be walked back. But the precarious element to this, is that one individual can collect the ballots of up to 10 people to deliver. This has spawned ballot harvesting groups, who go around door-to-door, looking to collect ballots. Of course, who will know if that 'harvester' will drop off the ballots they collected?
2. The state has instituted same day registration, which has no photo ID requirement to vote; only signatures are required, however, there are no assurances that the signatures being provided are valid.
3. Every registered voter will get a ballot, whether or not they have voted in many years. There have been reports that voters have received ballots for people who have never lived at that address.
These new election laws have been passed by a Democratically controlled state legislature. Will these new laws make a difference in election results? Certainly in a tight race it can.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/31/colorado-new-controversial-ballot-system/
For years now, we've heard Democrats complaining that voter ID laws are racist, and that poor minorities can't get access to photo IDs. But the Democrats simply choose to ignore the necessity of requiring legitimate identification of the individual who is about to cast a vote. Without the ID, the vote is open to all kinds of fraud, including impersonation, voting by non-citizens or felons, and multiple registrations in multiple jurisdictions. But to say that minorities can't get photo ID is not only untrue, it is quite condescending to them...one may even say it's racist.
The following are some of the things a photo ID is needed for:
driver's license
union voting
library card
passport
auto insurance
traffic stop
public school entrance
court
benefits like unemployment insurance
banks
credit card
buying certain OTC medications
boarding a plane
and many more....
http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/
As an ironic sidenote, a photo ID was needed at a recent NAACP convention.
These examples are only some of the disturbing trends going on during election cycles. Seriously, who can argue that requiring a valid ID isn't necessary to maintaining the integrity of an important American right? For those who do argue, we must believe it is they who must be looking to influence the outcome.
Some voting machines in Maryland and Illinois were switching votes from Republican to Democrat.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/10/28/voting-machine-in-maryland-changes-votes-for-republicans-to-votes-for-democrats-n1910991
In Arizona, a liberal activist was caught on video stuffing a ballot box with hundreds of ballots.
http://www.inquisitr.com/1572639/2014-election-results-democrat-voter-fraud-caught-in-arizona-maryland-and-illinois/
Reports of thousands of illegal immigrants voting.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/01/driver-licenses-id-cards-for-illegal-immigrants-causing-voting-concerns/
Promises of 'no photo ID required' on signs outside of polling places.
Recent data has shown there was massive voter fraud in North Carolina in 2012 - 765 people voted in NC and voted in another state (name, DOB and SS# matched up). As many as 35,000 people matched up with name and DOB but not SS# (that needs further investigation).
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/10/dick-morris/dick-morris-theres-proof-over-1-million-people-vot/
1. Every eligible voter is receiving a ballot in the mail (this is done in Oregon and Washington state too). Once they are filled in, they need not be mailed back, they can be walked back. But the precarious element to this, is that one individual can collect the ballots of up to 10 people to deliver. This has spawned ballot harvesting groups, who go around door-to-door, looking to collect ballots. Of course, who will know if that 'harvester' will drop off the ballots they collected?
2. The state has instituted same day registration, which has no photo ID requirement to vote; only signatures are required, however, there are no assurances that the signatures being provided are valid.
3. Every registered voter will get a ballot, whether or not they have voted in many years. There have been reports that voters have received ballots for people who have never lived at that address.
These new election laws have been passed by a Democratically controlled state legislature. Will these new laws make a difference in election results? Certainly in a tight race it can.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/31/colorado-new-controversial-ballot-system/
For years now, we've heard Democrats complaining that voter ID laws are racist, and that poor minorities can't get access to photo IDs. But the Democrats simply choose to ignore the necessity of requiring legitimate identification of the individual who is about to cast a vote. Without the ID, the vote is open to all kinds of fraud, including impersonation, voting by non-citizens or felons, and multiple registrations in multiple jurisdictions. But to say that minorities can't get photo ID is not only untrue, it is quite condescending to them...one may even say it's racist.
The following are some of the things a photo ID is needed for:
driver's license
union voting
library card
passport
auto insurance
traffic stop
public school entrance
court
benefits like unemployment insurance
banks
credit card
buying certain OTC medications
boarding a plane
and many more....
http://godfatherpolitics.com/7374/why-is-photo-id-required-for-everything-except-to-vote/
As an ironic sidenote, a photo ID was needed at a recent NAACP convention.
These examples are only some of the disturbing trends going on during election cycles. Seriously, who can argue that requiring a valid ID isn't necessary to maintaining the integrity of an important American right? For those who do argue, we must believe it is they who must be looking to influence the outcome.
Saturday, October 18, 2014
What Is The President's Agenda for Ebola?
With the new appointment of the Ebola Czar, it is now official that the concern for this President regarding the deadly virus is purely political. Ron Klain is a lawyer, a long-time lobbyist and former Chief of Staff to VPs Joe Biden and Al Gore. Klain has zero medical background/knowledge, and yet he is to be the spokesperson for calming the Ebola panic that's running through the country. When trust in the government is at an all time low, Obama brings in a political hack to ease our fears. Can the trust go even lower?
The government is still sticking to its plan not to enforce any travel bans from Ebola-stricken countries, even as 30 something countries around the world have done so (including countries in Africa - are they racist too?) And, more importantly, the majority of Americans want a travel ban. In fact, there are tens of thousands of signatures on a petition to the White House to do just that. All this is being ignored by this President.
Now, according to the Washington Examiner, Obama is working on plans to bring non-American Ebola infected persons HERE to treat them? This is incomprehensible. If that is true, what is his agenda?
Between the refusal to impose a travel ban and the plan to treat non-Americans here, this all begs the question: WHY DOES OBAMA WANT INFECTED AND VERY CONTAGIOUS PEOPLE TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY? There's no other way to look at this right now.
The government is still sticking to its plan not to enforce any travel bans from Ebola-stricken countries, even as 30 something countries around the world have done so (including countries in Africa - are they racist too?) And, more importantly, the majority of Americans want a travel ban. In fact, there are tens of thousands of signatures on a petition to the White House to do just that. All this is being ignored by this President.
Now, according to the Washington Examiner, Obama is working on plans to bring non-American Ebola infected persons HERE to treat them? This is incomprehensible. If that is true, what is his agenda?
Between the refusal to impose a travel ban and the plan to treat non-Americans here, this all begs the question: WHY DOES OBAMA WANT INFECTED AND VERY CONTAGIOUS PEOPLE TO COME TO THIS COUNTRY? There's no other way to look at this right now.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
Say No To 'Fighting' Ebola
There are already about 350 American troops in west Africa, sent to help contain the Ebola outbreak there. More troops are getting ready to go. Funny. I don't recall learning that our military were to be used to stop the spread of disease in far off countries. I'm pretty sure our military is to be used to defend this country from its enemies, to fight wars, and to fend off threats to our national security. I thought the military were trained to be warriors.
Now one may argue that the deadly Ebola virus does threaten our national security by threatening our national health. However, an agency like the World Health Organization handles responsibilities like containing a virus in other parts of the world and they have already been on the scene there.
So I must take exception to this latest order from the Commander in Chief. Doesn't sending our troops to west Africa threaten our national security by exposing them to this virus? Doesn't it put them in harm's way of a very different nature? Will troops who go there contract the virus? Will it then spread to infect other troops and their families? Why is our President asking them to go and handle this? I think it's an extraordinarily inappropriate use of our troops and a sacrifice that no family should have to put up with. Ebola is not an American problem. It's a worldwide medical problem. Let the medical professionals from WHO and other agencies handle this. I don't think our military should abide by this order. Tell your Commander in Chief "hell no, we won't go."
Now one may argue that the deadly Ebola virus does threaten our national security by threatening our national health. However, an agency like the World Health Organization handles responsibilities like containing a virus in other parts of the world and they have already been on the scene there.
So I must take exception to this latest order from the Commander in Chief. Doesn't sending our troops to west Africa threaten our national security by exposing them to this virus? Doesn't it put them in harm's way of a very different nature? Will troops who go there contract the virus? Will it then spread to infect other troops and their families? Why is our President asking them to go and handle this? I think it's an extraordinarily inappropriate use of our troops and a sacrifice that no family should have to put up with. Ebola is not an American problem. It's a worldwide medical problem. Let the medical professionals from WHO and other agencies handle this. I don't think our military should abide by this order. Tell your Commander in Chief "hell no, we won't go."
Saturday, October 11, 2014
Deadly Virus Becomes Political
The insidious Ebola virus, once restricted to a few countries on another far away continent, has stepped foot into the United States. One traveller from Liberia, came here asymptomatic on the flight, but revealed symptoms shortly afterward. Released from a Dallas hospital when he went there with a high fever, Thomas Duncan evidently was misdiagnosed and sent home with an antibiotic. After coming in contact with approximately 100 people since his arrival, Duncan soon succumbed to the deadly virus. Many people are now claiming that it was due to racism that Duncan didn't get proper treatment. Jesse Jackson says it was due to his race and lack of privilege which kept him from receiving the proper care.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/9/jesse-jackson-dallas-lawmaker-blame-racism-for-ebo/
We've heard time and time again over the last couple of weeks, by CDC Director Tom Friedan, that banning flights from west African countries would not only not make a difference in stopping Ebola from coming in, but may make it worse. That sealing the borders would not help because it would be harder to get medical supplies and personnel in to fight it. That isolating these countries would enable the virus to spread further over there, thereby making it tougher to get a handle on it. According to Anthony Fauci, head of another government agency, it would then cause those countries to panic and lead to unrest, possibly the fall of their governments. So now the concern shifts to the governments of these African countries and away from the safety of the American citizens?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/06/CDC-Chief-Frieden-on-Ebola-Sealing-Borders-Increases-People-s-Distrust-of-Government
Here'a a little known fact about this administration - in 2010, after opposition by the ACLU and other groups, Obama very quietly scrapped proposals by the CDC to impose stricter regulations to detain sick travellers and to require more reporting from airlines to better track sick people. These new regulations were "critical" according to the Centers for Disease Control. Now the administration is silent on that decision, and naturally, so is the supportive liberal media. According to Media Research Center (MRC) most TV networks won't even inquire as to whether the government is doing enough to stop the disease from coming in.
http://www.mrc.org/bias-numbers/ebola-networks-91-confident-travel-screenings-are-sufficient
Anyone from the political Left, please explain. Our country, and the world, are facing the prospect of a pandemic from a deadly virus. Since we know from which countries the virus originates, the common sensical action would be first to ban flights from the Ebola stricken countries (notwithstanding the shipment of medical supplies and personnel). Banning passenger flights would be a good first step (despite what the government is trying to convince us of) and already a few European countries have done that. One liberal commentator even went so far as to suggest that we owe it to Liberia to keep travel open, since America, a few hundred years ago, imported slaves from there. How can we turn our backs on them now, he said? If this isn't completely warped, I don't know what is.
Secondly, close our borders. This seems too obvious to even mention, and yet, this administration refuses to do so. Why? And to add further injury, some are speculating that if Ebola enters into Central America, those citizens will be making their way into the United States, through our open borders, by the thousands, looking for treatment. The implications for keeping it under control then are frightening.
So, to those on the political Left: why is wanting to keep our own citizens safe, racist and incompassionate? Above all, why is this political?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/9/jesse-jackson-dallas-lawmaker-blame-racism-for-ebo/
We've heard time and time again over the last couple of weeks, by CDC Director Tom Friedan, that banning flights from west African countries would not only not make a difference in stopping Ebola from coming in, but may make it worse. That sealing the borders would not help because it would be harder to get medical supplies and personnel in to fight it. That isolating these countries would enable the virus to spread further over there, thereby making it tougher to get a handle on it. According to Anthony Fauci, head of another government agency, it would then cause those countries to panic and lead to unrest, possibly the fall of their governments. So now the concern shifts to the governments of these African countries and away from the safety of the American citizens?
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/10/06/CDC-Chief-Frieden-on-Ebola-Sealing-Borders-Increases-People-s-Distrust-of-Government
Here'a a little known fact about this administration - in 2010, after opposition by the ACLU and other groups, Obama very quietly scrapped proposals by the CDC to impose stricter regulations to detain sick travellers and to require more reporting from airlines to better track sick people. These new regulations were "critical" according to the Centers for Disease Control. Now the administration is silent on that decision, and naturally, so is the supportive liberal media. According to Media Research Center (MRC) most TV networks won't even inquire as to whether the government is doing enough to stop the disease from coming in.
http://www.mrc.org/bias-numbers/ebola-networks-91-confident-travel-screenings-are-sufficient
Anyone from the political Left, please explain. Our country, and the world, are facing the prospect of a pandemic from a deadly virus. Since we know from which countries the virus originates, the common sensical action would be first to ban flights from the Ebola stricken countries (notwithstanding the shipment of medical supplies and personnel). Banning passenger flights would be a good first step (despite what the government is trying to convince us of) and already a few European countries have done that. One liberal commentator even went so far as to suggest that we owe it to Liberia to keep travel open, since America, a few hundred years ago, imported slaves from there. How can we turn our backs on them now, he said? If this isn't completely warped, I don't know what is.
Secondly, close our borders. This seems too obvious to even mention, and yet, this administration refuses to do so. Why? And to add further injury, some are speculating that if Ebola enters into Central America, those citizens will be making their way into the United States, through our open borders, by the thousands, looking for treatment. The implications for keeping it under control then are frightening.
So, to those on the political Left: why is wanting to keep our own citizens safe, racist and incompassionate? Above all, why is this political?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)